Sure, and if I wanted to I could pick at that, ask whether power of arrest is inherent to the definition as well, whether PCSOs would actually fall under that definition and so on and so forth. It was a bad example on my part as I wasn't aware there was an official definition given to officers, but I hope you can imagine it would be hard to come up with those words off the cuff.
I did get it a bit wrong. Instead of 'Police Officer' it should have read 'Constable'
I don't think the clock can be turned back - if you exclude notes it would only be fair to exclude cameras and microphones too. It's not reasonable, or even sensible, to judge either the PM or their deputy on the amount of information they have memorised or the ability to compose definitions on demand. That performance is not a matter of policy or competence, it's a theatrical trick that privileges the wafflers and bullshitters of the world.
I don't entirely agree. My experience is that if you ask questions to someone that knows what they're talking about, they can answer you. Sure - there might be details they don't recall, but you can ask "why do you think X is true?" and get a comprehensive answer. If someone can't explain why they think their argument is correct, how can I have any confidence that they have command of the domain in question?
In PMQs today, Ms Raynor was unable to say what a working person was.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
I thought he was and he didn't want to waste all of his questions trying to get a proper answer.
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
Defining what a worker is should not have been difficult.
Of course it isn't. It's a rhetorical trap. Which is why he asked it.
And this is a case in point. If you are going to talk about "working people", you need to explain what you mean by that. What kinds of people are included or excluded from your definition. Is this anyone with a job? Anyone who is self-employed? Is it people who work for an hourly wage rather than a salary? Is it the traditional working class? If you can't explain what you mean by a particular catchphrase, you shouldn't say it.
I don't think the clock can be turned back - if you exclude notes it would only be fair to exclude cameras and microphones too. It's not reasonable, or even sensible, to judge either the PM or their deputy on the amount of information they have memorised or the ability to compose definitions on demand. That performance is not a matter of policy or competence, it's a theatrical trick that privileges the wafflers and bullshitters of the world.
I don't entirely agree. My experience is that if you ask questions to someone that knows what they're talking about, they can answer you. Sure - there might be details they don't recall, but you can ask "why do you think X is true?" and get a comprehensive answer. If someone can't explain why they think their argument is correct, how can I have any confidence that they have command of the domain in question?
In PMQs today, Ms Raynor was unable to say what a working person was.
Oliver Dowden was effective with that as an opening question.
I thought he was and he didn't want to waste all of his questions trying to get a proper answer.
She was far more comfortable when she could read a prepared answer from her sheet of paper.
Which, in fairness, is what PMQs has long been about - guess what the opposition will ask and give a prepared answer (in some cases regardless of the question). Short-circuiting that piece of theatre with an unexpected question is, I think, a good thing.
Defining what a worker is should not have been difficult.
Of course it isn't. It's a rhetorical trap. Which is why he asked it.
And this is a case in point. If you are going to talk about "working people", you need to explain what you mean by that. What kinds of people are included or excluded from your definition. Is this anyone with a job? Anyone who is self-employed? Is it people who work for an hourly wage rather than a salary? Is it the traditional working class? If you can't explain what you mean by a particular catchphrase, you shouldn't say it.
That's also a fair point.
However, I don't think any of us should be surprised by the use of such catchphrases or short hand in political campaigning.
I think most of us know what it means in general terms. It is just that a legalistic definition - a precise definition - is tricky. And any vaguely intelligent person knows that if that's the first question of six, it's really dangerous to try to come up with something on the hoof.
Of course, Rayner’s rejoiner was a pretty good response under the circumstances.
I don't think the clock can be turned back - if you exclude notes it would only be fair to exclude cameras and microphones too. It's not reasonable, or even sensible, to judge either the PM or their deputy on the amount of information they have memorised or the ability to compose definitions on demand. That performance is not a matter of policy or competence, it's a theatrical trick that privileges the wafflers and bullshitters of the world.
I don't entirely agree. My experience is that if you ask questions to someone that knows what they're talking about, they can answer you. Sure - there might be details they don't recall, but you can ask "why do you think X is true?" and get a comprehensive answer. If someone can't explain why they think their argument is correct, how can I have any confidence that they have command of the domain in question?
Which, of course, raises the question of how much expertise in a subject we expect from politicians.
I've just got home from my weekly lecture. So far, in the few years I've been teaching the course I've not got a question I've not been able to answer in a reasonably comprehensive way - though, in practice I'd usually give a short answer and then ask if that's cleared things up for the student and only gone deeper into the question if the student is needing more to understand what I'm trying to teach, enough to satisfy the curiosity or incomprehension of the student without interrupting the lecture too much for everyone else (or, holding everyone back too long after the scheduled 5pm end time). That's the result of almost 30 years active research in a field of study, I'd have not been able to be able to comprehensively answer questions 20y ago after a mere 10y research, and I'd have had to resort to the "that's a good question, can I get back to you next week?"
I don't expect politicians to have the comprehensive knowledge of a subject that someone has after 30y actively engaged in practicing in that field. It might be good for secretary of state for education to have some experience in teaching, but it's not essential (it would probably be better for the country for someone who's a skilled teacher to be in the class room teaching rather than in government), and even if they had a background teaching high school English they wouldn't be an expert in teaching elementary school science or further education hospitality courses.
Which, of course, raises the question of how much expertise in a subject we expect from politicians.
If they’re going to write laws about something then I’d bloody well hope they’ve got enough expertise to explain what the law will do and who it will affect. And if they’re going to repeat a catchphrase ad nauseam during (and after) an election campaign then they should at least be willing and able to engage with questions about what it actually means.
Or did holding the government to account stop being a good thing once there wasn’t a Tory in Number 10?
This shows up the fundamental issue for me, with the whole way parliament and our political process now works. It's all politics, all the sport of elections, no governing. I agree that, in order to govern, a government needs to know what it means by phrases such as "working people" when they use it, and also what they are implying for those not caught within that definition. I am seeing a lot of fear from people, such as those with disabilities and pensioners, who not see themselves as being included by any definition of the term. Personally, I think that the only separation needed now is between the rich, who can support themselves by their own resources, and have enough surplus to pay wealth taxes which support the rest of the population, while also supporting the public services they still rely on, such as health, transport, etc.. This wealth will have been extracted at various points, and the requirement to pay back a small part of that wealth and the returns made on it is not unreasonable.
I don't expect politicians to have the comprehensive knowledge of a subject that someone has after 30y actively engaged in practicing in that field. It might be good for secretary of state for education to have some experience in teaching, but it's not essential (it would probably be better for the country for someone who's a skilled teacher to be in the class room teaching rather than in government), and even if they had a background teaching high school English they wouldn't be an expert in teaching elementary school science or further education hospitality courses.
You don't need to be (and it probably doesn't help you to be) a good teacher to be a good secretary of state for Education, but if you're going to stand up and make claims that education will be better and more fit for purpose if we make a particular set of changes, then you need to understand, and be able to explain, why this is true. And if that means that you convene a committee, have it write a report, and then spend a whole bunch of time in Westminster House forcing the committee to defend their report and its conclusions, that's OK. But if you're not going to make the authors of your opinions available for scrutiny then you need to defend the arguments yourself.
I agree with the above. But, producing a report to defend a policy position etc is not the same as being able to answer an on the spot question asking for something that would take a short report to answer. While a phrase like "working people" may be unreasonable to hang a policy on, it's equally true that a manifesto spending two or three pages outlining who is, and isn't, included under the phrase "working people" is equally unreasonable. And, for a minister to be able to give an answer in the toxic environment of the Commons, where they'd barely get to open their mouth before being hollered at by people who have forgotten what children are taught in kindergarten, is probably impossible.
There's a need to reform Parliament, so that when a question needs 10 minutes* to answer the minister is given 10 minutes without interruption to answer, and when an answer takes that time to give that will need time to prepare the answer. Labour don't appear to be any more inclined to reform Parliamentary procedures and conventions than the Conservatives were over the previous decade and a half, or for that matter the Labour government before that.
* I don't actually know how long will be needed to answer any given question, this figure is for illustration only.
I agree with the above. But, producing a report to defend a policy position etc is not the same as being able to answer an on the spot question asking for something that would take a short report to answer. While a phrase like "working people" may be unreasonable to hang a policy on, it's equally true that a manifesto spending two or three pages outlining who is, and isn't, included under the phrase "working people" is equally unreasonable. And, for a minister to be able to give an answer in the toxic environment of the Commons, where they'd barely get to open their mouth before being hollered at by people who have forgotten what children are taught in kindergarten, is probably impossible.
There's a need to reform Parliament, so that when a question needs 10 minutes* to answer the minister is given 10 minutes without interruption to answer, and when an answer takes that time to give that will need time to prepare the answer. Labour don't appear to be any more inclined to reform Parliamentary procedures and conventions than the Conservatives were over the previous decade and a half, or for that matter the Labour government before that.
* I don't actually know how long will be needed to answer any given question, this figure is for illustration only.
I think the trouble with "working people" is that as with "hard-working families" it sounds generally wholesome but can be redefined pretty much at will both in people's heads and out loud. It sounds as though it might mean "working-class" but on the other hand someone might have a very well-paying job but still be a "working person". And does it specifically exclude someone who is unemployed? Or are they still a "working person" who just happens not to be working in paid employment at the moment? And is an unpaid carer or homemaker a "working person"? I mean, they are certainly working! So it does not seem a very enlightening phrase.
It is a great phrase that sounds good, particularly to the centre ground Labour were courting during the election. It is in a sense meaningless. The government can put in certain policies and claim they are for working people. They are following the old principle of putting all the bad stuff at the beginning and thinking things will improve by the next election and everyone will forget the bad stuff. Som people have long memories.
It is a great phrase that sounds good, particularly to the centre ground Labour were courting during the election. It is in a sense meaningless.
I think the language has two roots, one decidedly less excusable than the other. If you recall; when austerity was rolled out it was positioned very much as form of prudence, and Osborne used the language of 'shirkers' vs 'workers' or 'strivers' or 'hard working families' to give the impression that the impact was primarily going to fall on the 'undeserving poor':
The Labour Right were quick to adopt this language, with Rachel Reeves saying at the time that "We don’t want to be seen, and we're not, the party to represent those who are out of work. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.":
The problem is the eventually the reality of austerity caught up in terms of a decayed public realm, and the casualisation of labour as well as flatlining wages pushed more and more workers into benefits.
I think the Starmer's comments about people who aren't able to write a cheque to get over an emergency because they live paycheque to paycheque is a somewhat clumsy way of describing the latter, while trying to keep to the other theme because they are terrified that the papers will go after them for not being tough enough on those on benefits (minus pensioners of course).
There is no point in this fellating of the Daily Mail. Its readers wouldn't vote Labour in any number, even if Starmer personally followed the lead of the first Lord Northcliffe.
There is no point in this fellating of the Daily Mail. Its readers wouldn't vote Labour in any number, even if Starmer personally followed the lead of the first Lord Northcliffe.
The Labour Right led by Mattinson and co are convinced that there are 'Hero Voters' (so called because they potential Tory Labour swing voters who thus count double) and have been scouring focus groups looking for them, despite their own report concluding that they didn't really show up and Labour won due to Tory-Reform splits.
There is no point in this fellating of the Daily Mail. Its readers wouldn't vote Labour in any number, even if Starmer personally followed the lead of the first Lord Northcliffe.
The Labour Right led by Mattinson and co are convinced that there are 'Hero Voters' (so called because they potential Tory Labour swing voters who thus count double) and have been scouring focus groups looking for them, despite their own report concluding that they didn't really show up and Labour won due to Tory-Reform splits.
I need to have a look at this properly but that doesn't sound right. Other data I've seen shows that the Reform/Tory split made it a landslide but without it, a Labour majority of 80 would have happened. That's well beyond the 'workable' line.
There is no point in this fellating of the Daily Mail. Its readers wouldn't vote Labour in any number, even if Starmer personally followed the lead of the first Lord Northcliffe.
The Labour Right led by Mattinson and co are convinced that there are 'Hero Voters' (so called because they potential Tory Labour swing voters who thus count double) and have been scouring focus groups looking for them, despite their own report concluding that they didn't really show up and Labour won due to Tory-Reform splits.
I need to have a look at this properly but that doesn't sound right. Other data I've seen shows that the Reform/Tory split made it a landslide but without it, a Labour majority of 80 would have happened. That's well beyond the 'workable' line.
Sorry, I should have been clearer, the evidence is that they won in those seats (Northern post-industrial) due to the splits, not due to 'Hero Voters' showing up. It wasn't intended as a comment on the result as a whole.
It would be interesting to see how many seats Labour won where Tory + Reform would have had more votes.
There are some. But it is a mistake - which has been discussed on the future of the Tory party thread - to add those two numbers together and assume that means a Conservative win, Some of the Reform voters are UKIP / Brexit Party voters and were not Tory voters to begin with. Of the people who previously voted Conservative and voted Reform in 2024, a large majority will not consider voting Conservative within the next 5 years. It goes deeper than that too - when asked questions about beliefs and values etc, the Reform voters are quite distinct from most Conservative voters.
I cannot read either article you have linked to in full, @Telford, but can read enough to assume that they contain a discussion of racism. If I am correct, any further discussion belongs in Epiphanies.
Labour won a massive majority with less than 34% of the votes cast. Such support would not have even won the election in many past elections.
They are very vulnerable to be out next election.
That depends. If they come through for the nation and we see great improvement by then they will probably get a good result. Most voters don’t follow the ins and outs. They know what is in the news and, most importantly how well off they are. If their lives have improved. If public services are running well, if the NHS is back to what it was. If Labour can get that sorted even in a small way they are probably onto a winner.
Labour won a massive majority with less than 34% of the votes cast. Such support would not have even won the election in many past elections.
They are very vulnerable to be out next election.
That depends. If they come through for the nation and we see great improvement by then they will probably get a good result. Most voters don’t follow the ins and outs. They know what is in the news and, most importantly how well off they are. If their lives have improved. If public services are running well, if the NHS is back to what it was. If Labour can get that sorted even in a small way they are probably onto a winner.
Labour won a massive majority with less than 34% of the votes cast. Such support would not have even won the election in many past elections.
They are very vulnerable to be out next election.
If public services are running well, if the NHS is back to what it was. If Labour can get that sorted even in a small way they are probably onto a winner.
I worry that getting the NHS 'back to what it was' is not possible. Even if time and resources per patient were doubled I think the miss-match between people's health problems and what the NHS (or any healthcare system) can achieve is unbridgeable.
People started complaining about Labour blaming the Conservatives almost as soon as the election was over, who never complained about the Conservatives blaming Labour for austerity.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
People started complaining about Labour blaming the Conservatives almost as soon as the election was over, who never complained about the Conservatives blaming Labour for austerity.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
People started complaining about Labour blaming the Conservatives almost as soon as the election was over, who never complained about the Conservatives blaming Labour for austerity.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
People started complaining about Labour blaming the Conservatives almost as soon as the election was over, who never complained about the Conservatives blaming Labour for austerity.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
It all goes back to the disaster of 2008.
Winter of discontent, surely?
Nah, coming off the gold standard in 1931. All downhill from there.
Definitely the Storegga tsunami and the flooding of Doggerland. Putting a large body of water between the British Isles and the rest of Europe was definitely a very bad idea.
Definitely the Storegga tsunami and the flooding of Doggerland. Putting a large body of water between the British Isles and the rest of Europe was definitely a very bad idea.
The island nation mentality has no doubt had a huge effect on British history.
That was caused by US lenders' malpractice and which would hav been much worse if not for the way Brown and Darling handled it.
"There's no money left"
Was a joke, as anyone with a basic understanding of economics would know (and, possibly have a wee chuckle over, because it's not exactly a rib tickler). A government that can literally print money if needed (though there are economic consequences of this) simply can't run out of money.
Brown and Darling were riding the 2008 blip quite well - we can discuss whether bailing out private financial institutions that were unwise in their investments (rather than, say, compensating the public who had savings in those banks) was a good move, but the general economic response was sound. By 2010 the economy was recovering well and 2008 would have just been one of many financial blips that any government would need to deal with and be largely forgotten if the incoming government didn't end all the good work that was in place and plunge the country into economic decline we've never recovered from.
That was caused by US lenders' malpractice and which would hav been much worse if not for the way Brown and Darling handled it.
"There's no money left"
Was a joke, as anyone with a basic understanding of economics would know (and, possibly have a wee chuckle over, because it's not exactly a rib tickler). A government that can literally print money if needed (though there are economic consequences of this) simply can't run out of money.
Brown and Darling were riding the 2008 blip quite well - we can discuss whether bailing out private financial institutions that were unwise in their investments (rather than, say, compensating the public who had savings in those banks) was a good move, but the general economic response was sound. By 2010 the economy was recovering well and 2008 would have just been one of many financial blips that any government would need to deal with and be largely forgotten if the incoming government didn't end all the good work that was in place and plunge the country into economic decline we've never recovered from.
Perfect summary. And much better than the intemperate response I was instinctively drawn to.
I strongly recommend Darling's book Back from the brink.
It was LibDem MP Laws who leaked the letter. He had to resign within two weeks of taking his post. He finally apologised last year.
Cameron and Osborne used this lie to do so much damage to our country.
But what I find mind-boggling is that someone who's been on these boards for a while would post this.
The idea that this is a sound argument has been so thoroughly debunked, repeatedly that it just shows an incredible arrogance.
People started complaining about Labour blaming the Conservatives almost as soon as the election was over, who never complained about the Conservatives blaming Labour for austerity.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
It all goes back to the disaster of 2008.
I am going (against my better judgement) to respond to this.
The “disaster” of 2008 was caused by the irresponsible behaviour of inadequately regulated financial markets. (Structurally, what happened had similarities with the Lloyd’s of London insurance crash two and a half decades previously.) The markets then responded by doing what (free market) economists expect (and laud them for doing) namely they corrected for the problem. Unfortunately the human and social costs of that correction were immense – as is quite often the case.
Governments and financial institutions (with the benefit of a significant lead from Gordon Brown) took steps to stabilise the situation – essentially by bailing out the failing financial institutions. There was, however, a significant financial, and therefore economic impact from this failure in the financial markets. The political fallout from that together with the Iraq war was a significant factor in the UK labour government losing the 2010 general election.
George Osborne's “austerity” program is seen by many economists now (and not a few at the time) as mistaken, and the associated political/ideological drive towards a smaller state has had adverse consequences in the education system, in the NHS, and in building standards (Grenfell Tower anyone?) to name but a few. On top of all that has been the effect of the self inflicted wound of Brexit, and the impact of the unexpected and inadequately-prepared-for COVID-19 pandemic.
This was followed by the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng budget in September 2022.
Turning now to the March 2024 Budget, here is the Institute for Government's take on it:
the chancellor is not even likely to meet his fiscal rule, despite his claims to the contrary and the OBR giving him a ‘pass’ in its formal assessment of the government’s performance. That is because the OBR is required to take stated government policy at face value. But this too is a fantasy: overall budgets per person for public services are allegedly going to be frozen in real terms even though the government has committed to large spending increases in specific areas (such as the NHS, defence and overseas aid). Meanwhile, the energy windfall tax is set to expire the year after the forecast period, which would reduce any headroom available to the chancellor in the following years. This fiscal fiction is another problem our report seeks to address.
Whoever is chancellor after the next election, they are going to have one heck of a difficult circle to square. They will inherit historically high taxes, struggling public services, a big debt interest bill, the highest debt in 60 years, and poor growth. The first post-election budget and spending review will contain some nasty surprises.
If that was not bad enough, the Government failed to provide the Office for Budget Responsibility with adequate information in the run-up to the March 2024 Budget Statement leading the OBR to give and inaccurate response to that budget, as was note in the OBR's report on it (PDF) last month. The Treasury kept these issues to themselves
Up until the March 2024 forecast, the processes for forecasting levels of RDEL spending [departmental expenditure limits for resource spending] during spending review periods had been largely successful. This was not the case in the March 2024 EFO [economic and fiscal outlook]. The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL, about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down at the challenge panel. Further information that came to light after this meeting, but before the forecast was published, about pressures on baseline RDEL budgets and the implications of policy decisions announced at the Budget, was also not sufficiently shared.
Basically, the Treasury under Jeremy Hunt, concealed, or failed to reveal, information known to them at the time which would significantly have affected the OBR's analysis. This information only became available to the present Government after the election.
Basically, although Labour (rightly) suspected that the financial situation was bad, and said so, it was actually significantly worse than official information implied.
People started complaining about Labour blaming the Conservatives almost as soon as the election was over, who never complained about the Conservatives blaming Labour for austerity.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
It all goes back to the disaster of 2008.
I am going (against my better judgement) to respond to this.
The “disaster” of 2008 was caused by the irresponsible behaviour of inadequately regulated financial markets. (Structurally, what happened had similarities with the Lloyd’s of London insurance crash two and a half decades previously.) The markets then responded by doing what (free market) economists expect (and laud them for doing) namely they corrected for the problem. Unfortunately the human and social costs of that correction were immense – as is quite often the case.
Governments and financial institutions (with the benefit of a significant lead from Gordon Brown) took steps to stabilise the situation – essentially by bailing out the failing financial institutions. There was, however, a significant financial, and therefore economic impact from this failure in the financial markets. The political fallout from that together with the Iraq war was a significant factor in the UK labour government losing the 2010 general election.
George Osborne's “austerity” program is seen by many economists now (and not a few at the time) as mistaken, and the associated political/ideological drive towards a smaller state has had adverse consequences in the education system, in the NHS, and in building standards (Grenfell Tower anyone?) to name but a few. On top of all that has been the effect of the self inflicted wound of Brexit, and the impact of the unexpected and inadequately-prepared-for COVID-19 pandemic.
This was followed by the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng budget in September 2022.
Turning now to the March 2024 Budget, here is the Institute for Government's take on it:
the chancellor is not even likely to meet his fiscal rule, despite his claims to the contrary and the OBR giving him a ‘pass’ in its formal assessment of the government’s performance. That is because the OBR is required to take stated government policy at face value. But this too is a fantasy: overall budgets per person for public services are allegedly going to be frozen in real terms even though the government has committed to large spending increases in specific areas (such as the NHS, defence and overseas aid). Meanwhile, the energy windfall tax is set to expire the year after the forecast period, which would reduce any headroom available to the chancellor in the following years. This fiscal fiction is another problem our report seeks to address.
Whoever is chancellor after the next election, they are going to have one heck of a difficult circle to square. They will inherit historically high taxes, struggling public services, a big debt interest bill, the highest debt in 60 years, and poor growth. The first post-election budget and spending review will contain some nasty surprises.
If that was not bad enough, the Government failed to provide the Office for Budget Responsibility with adequate information in the run-up to the March 2024 Budget Statement leading the OBR to give and inaccurate response to that budget, as was note in the OBR's report on it (PDF) last month. The Treasury kept these issues to themselves
Up until the March 2024 forecast, the processes for forecasting levels of RDEL spending [departmental expenditure limits for resource spending] during spending review periods had been largely successful. This was not the case in the March 2024 EFO [economic and fiscal outlook]. The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL, about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down at the challenge panel. Further information that came to light after this meeting, but before the forecast was published, about pressures on baseline RDEL budgets and the implications of policy decisions announced at the Budget, was also not sufficiently shared.
Basically, the Treasury under Jeremy Hunt, concealed, or failed to reveal, information known to them at the time which would significantly have affected the OBR's analysis. This information only became available to the present Government after the election.
Basically, although Labour (rightly) suspected that the financial situation was bad, and said so, it was actually significantly worse than official information implied.
Are you seriously suggesting that Labour had no supporters in the Treasury. Surely Sue Gray would have insured that Labour supporters were in all departments.
I’m sure there were civil servants in the Treasury who were Labour voters, it seems, however, that for any who were aware of the situation their commitment to their duties of confidentiality as civil servants overrode any political commitment they might have had to the Labour Party.
People started complaining about Labour blaming the Conservatives almost as soon as the election was over, who never complained about the Conservatives blaming Labour for austerity.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
It all goes back to the disaster of 2008.
I am going (against my better judgement) to respond to this.
The “disaster” of 2008 was caused by the irresponsible behaviour of inadequately regulated financial markets. (Structurally, what happened had similarities with the Lloyd’s of London insurance crash two and a half decades previously.) The markets then responded by doing what (free market) economists expect (and laud them for doing) namely they corrected for the problem. Unfortunately the human and social costs of that correction were immense – as is quite often the case.
Governments and financial institutions (with the benefit of a significant lead from Gordon Brown) took steps to stabilise the situation – essentially by bailing out the failing financial institutions. There was, however, a significant financial, and therefore economic impact from this failure in the financial markets. The political fallout from that together with the Iraq war was a significant factor in the UK labour government losing the 2010 general election.
George Osborne's “austerity” program is seen by many economists now (and not a few at the time) as mistaken, and the associated political/ideological drive towards a smaller state has had adverse consequences in the education system, in the NHS, and in building standards (Grenfell Tower anyone?) to name but a few. On top of all that has been the effect of the self inflicted wound of Brexit, and the impact of the unexpected and inadequately-prepared-for COVID-19 pandemic.
This was followed by the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng budget in September 2022.
Turning now to the March 2024 Budget, here is the Institute for Government's take on it:
the chancellor is not even likely to meet his fiscal rule, despite his claims to the contrary and the OBR giving him a ‘pass’ in its formal assessment of the government’s performance. That is because the OBR is required to take stated government policy at face value. But this too is a fantasy: overall budgets per person for public services are allegedly going to be frozen in real terms even though the government has committed to large spending increases in specific areas (such as the NHS, defence and overseas aid). Meanwhile, the energy windfall tax is set to expire the year after the forecast period, which would reduce any headroom available to the chancellor in the following years. This fiscal fiction is another problem our report seeks to address.
Whoever is chancellor after the next election, they are going to have one heck of a difficult circle to square. They will inherit historically high taxes, struggling public services, a big debt interest bill, the highest debt in 60 years, and poor growth. The first post-election budget and spending review will contain some nasty surprises.
If that was not bad enough, the Government failed to provide the Office for Budget Responsibility with adequate information in the run-up to the March 2024 Budget Statement leading the OBR to give and inaccurate response to that budget, as was note in the OBR's report on it (PDF) last month. The Treasury kept these issues to themselves
Up until the March 2024 forecast, the processes for forecasting levels of RDEL spending [departmental expenditure limits for resource spending] during spending review periods had been largely successful. This was not the case in the March 2024 EFO [economic and fiscal outlook]. The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL, about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down at the challenge panel. Further information that came to light after this meeting, but before the forecast was published, about pressures on baseline RDEL budgets and the implications of policy decisions announced at the Budget, was also not sufficiently shared.
Basically, the Treasury under Jeremy Hunt, concealed, or failed to reveal, information known to them at the time which would significantly have affected the OBR's analysis. This information only became available to the present Government after the election.
Basically, although Labour (rightly) suspected that the financial situation was bad, and said so, it was actually significantly worse than official information implied.
Are you seriously suggesting that Labour had no supporters in the Treasury. Surely Sue Gray would have insured that Labour supporters were in all departments.
Really? That's your argument?
Let me make sure I've got this right:
1. Sue Gray ensured that there were Labour supporters in the treasury
2. Said Labour supporters leaked the information to Labour
Therefore the Labour team knew things were far worse than was being said publically by Hunt et al. Hence Labour are the liars...
People started complaining about Labour blaming the Conservatives almost as soon as the election was over, who never complained about the Conservatives blaming Labour for austerity.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
It all goes back to the disaster of 2008.
I am going (against my better judgement) to respond to this.
The “disaster” of 2008 was caused by the irresponsible behaviour of inadequately regulated financial markets. (Structurally, what happened had similarities with the Lloyd’s of London insurance crash two and a half decades previously.) The markets then responded by doing what (free market) economists expect (and laud them for doing) namely they corrected for the problem. Unfortunately the human and social costs of that correction were immense – as is quite often the case.
Governments and financial institutions (with the benefit of a significant lead from Gordon Brown) took steps to stabilise the situation – essentially by bailing out the failing financial institutions. There was, however, a significant financial, and therefore economic impact from this failure in the financial markets. The political fallout from that together with the Iraq war was a significant factor in the UK labour government losing the 2010 general election.
George Osborne's “austerity” program is seen by many economists now (and not a few at the time) as mistaken, and the associated political/ideological drive towards a smaller state has had adverse consequences in the education system, in the NHS, and in building standards (Grenfell Tower anyone?) to name but a few. On top of all that has been the effect of the self inflicted wound of Brexit, and the impact of the unexpected and inadequately-prepared-for COVID-19 pandemic.
This was followed by the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng budget in September 2022.
Turning now to the March 2024 Budget, here is the Institute for Government's take on it:
the chancellor is not even likely to meet his fiscal rule, despite his claims to the contrary and the OBR giving him a ‘pass’ in its formal assessment of the government’s performance. That is because the OBR is required to take stated government policy at face value. But this too is a fantasy: overall budgets per person for public services are allegedly going to be frozen in real terms even though the government has committed to large spending increases in specific areas (such as the NHS, defence and overseas aid). Meanwhile, the energy windfall tax is set to expire the year after the forecast period, which would reduce any headroom available to the chancellor in the following years. This fiscal fiction is another problem our report seeks to address.
Whoever is chancellor after the next election, they are going to have one heck of a difficult circle to square. They will inherit historically high taxes, struggling public services, a big debt interest bill, the highest debt in 60 years, and poor growth. The first post-election budget and spending review will contain some nasty surprises.
If that was not bad enough, the Government failed to provide the Office for Budget Responsibility with adequate information in the run-up to the March 2024 Budget Statement leading the OBR to give and inaccurate response to that budget, as was note in the OBR's report on it (PDF) last month. The Treasury kept these issues to themselves
Up until the March 2024 forecast, the processes for forecasting levels of RDEL spending [departmental expenditure limits for resource spending] during spending review periods had been largely successful. This was not the case in the March 2024 EFO [economic and fiscal outlook]. The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL, about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve, or about any plans to manage these pressures down at the challenge panel. Further information that came to light after this meeting, but before the forecast was published, about pressures on baseline RDEL budgets and the implications of policy decisions announced at the Budget, was also not sufficiently shared.
Basically, the Treasury under Jeremy Hunt, concealed, or failed to reveal, information known to them at the time which would significantly have affected the OBR's analysis. This information only became available to the present Government after the election.
Basically, although Labour (rightly) suspected that the financial situation was bad, and said so, it was actually significantly worse than official information implied.
Are you seriously suggesting that Labour had no supporters in the Treasury. Surely Sue Gray would have insured that Labour supporters were in all departments.
Really? That's your argument?
Let me make sure I've got this right:
1. Sue Gray ensured that there were Labour supporters in the treasury
2. Said Labour supporters leaked the information to Labour
Therefore the Labour team knew things were far worse than was being said publically by Hunt et al. Hence Labour are the liars...
Have I got that right?
More or less, but Hunt never claimed things were good.
Don't forget that Labour had been talking about everything being in a mess for years
Comments
I don't entirely agree. My experience is that if you ask questions to someone that knows what they're talking about, they can answer you. Sure - there might be details they don't recall, but you can ask "why do you think X is true?" and get a comprehensive answer. If someone can't explain why they think their argument is correct, how can I have any confidence that they have command of the domain in question?
And this is a case in point. If you are going to talk about "working people", you need to explain what you mean by that. What kinds of people are included or excluded from your definition. Is this anyone with a job? Anyone who is self-employed? Is it people who work for an hourly wage rather than a salary? Is it the traditional working class? If you can't explain what you mean by a particular catchphrase, you shouldn't say it.
That's also a fair point.
However, I don't think any of us should be surprised by the use of such catchphrases or short hand in political campaigning.
I think most of us know what it means in general terms. It is just that a legalistic definition - a precise definition - is tricky. And any vaguely intelligent person knows that if that's the first question of six, it's really dangerous to try to come up with something on the hoof.
Of course, Rayner’s rejoiner was a pretty good response under the circumstances.
AFZ
I've just got home from my weekly lecture. So far, in the few years I've been teaching the course I've not got a question I've not been able to answer in a reasonably comprehensive way - though, in practice I'd usually give a short answer and then ask if that's cleared things up for the student and only gone deeper into the question if the student is needing more to understand what I'm trying to teach, enough to satisfy the curiosity or incomprehension of the student without interrupting the lecture too much for everyone else (or, holding everyone back too long after the scheduled 5pm end time). That's the result of almost 30 years active research in a field of study, I'd have not been able to be able to comprehensively answer questions 20y ago after a mere 10y research, and I'd have had to resort to the "that's a good question, can I get back to you next week?"
I don't expect politicians to have the comprehensive knowledge of a subject that someone has after 30y actively engaged in practicing in that field. It might be good for secretary of state for education to have some experience in teaching, but it's not essential (it would probably be better for the country for someone who's a skilled teacher to be in the class room teaching rather than in government), and even if they had a background teaching high school English they wouldn't be an expert in teaching elementary school science or further education hospitality courses.
If they’re going to write laws about something then I’d bloody well hope they’ve got enough expertise to explain what the law will do and who it will affect. And if they’re going to repeat a catchphrase ad nauseam during (and after) an election campaign then they should at least be willing and able to engage with questions about what it actually means.
Or did holding the government to account stop being a good thing once there wasn’t a Tory in Number 10?
You don't need to be (and it probably doesn't help you to be) a good teacher to be a good secretary of state for Education, but if you're going to stand up and make claims that education will be better and more fit for purpose if we make a particular set of changes, then you need to understand, and be able to explain, why this is true. And if that means that you convene a committee, have it write a report, and then spend a whole bunch of time in Westminster House forcing the committee to defend their report and its conclusions, that's OK. But if you're not going to make the authors of your opinions available for scrutiny then you need to defend the arguments yourself.
There's a need to reform Parliament, so that when a question needs 10 minutes* to answer the minister is given 10 minutes without interruption to answer, and when an answer takes that time to give that will need time to prepare the answer. Labour don't appear to be any more inclined to reform Parliamentary procedures and conventions than the Conservatives were over the previous decade and a half, or for that matter the Labour government before that.
* I don't actually know how long will be needed to answer any given question, this figure is for illustration only.
We will soon find out if we are workers or not
There has been these things since 1948
I think the language has two roots, one decidedly less excusable than the other. If you recall; when austerity was rolled out it was positioned very much as form of prudence, and Osborne used the language of 'shirkers' vs 'workers' or 'strivers' or 'hard working families' to give the impression that the impact was primarily going to fall on the 'undeserving poor':
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/08/strivers-shirkers-language-welfare
The Labour Right were quick to adopt this language, with Rachel Reeves saying at the time that "We don’t want to be seen, and we're not, the party to represent those who are out of work. Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people.":
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rachel-reeves-says-labour-does-not-want-to-represent-people-out-of-work-10114614.html
With their outriders in the press taking up the same message: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/18/rachel-reeves-right-labour-reduce-benefits
The problem is the eventually the reality of austerity caught up in terms of a decayed public realm, and the casualisation of labour as well as flatlining wages pushed more and more workers into benefits.
I think the Starmer's comments about people who aren't able to write a cheque to get over an emergency because they live paycheque to paycheque is a somewhat clumsy way of describing the latter, while trying to keep to the other theme because they are terrified that the papers will go after them for not being tough enough on those on benefits (minus pensioners of course).
The Labour Right led by Mattinson and co are convinced that there are 'Hero Voters' (so called because they potential Tory Labour swing voters who thus count double) and have been scouring focus groups looking for them, despite their own report concluding that they didn't really show up and Labour won due to Tory-Reform splits.
https://www.labourtogether.uk/how-labour-won-2024-report
I need to have a look at this properly but that doesn't sound right. Other data I've seen shows that the Reform/Tory split made it a landslide but without it, a Labour majority of 80 would have happened. That's well beyond the 'workable' line.
AFZ
Sorry, I should have been clearer, the evidence is that they won in those seats (Northern post-industrial) due to the splits, not due to 'Hero Voters' showing up. It wasn't intended as a comment on the result as a whole.
There are some. But it is a mistake - which has been discussed on the future of the Tory party thread - to add those two numbers together and assume that means a Conservative win, Some of the Reform voters are UKIP / Brexit Party voters and were not Tory voters to begin with. Of the people who previously voted Conservative and voted Reform in 2024, a large majority will not consider voting Conservative within the next 5 years. It goes deeper than that too - when asked questions about beliefs and values etc, the Reform voters are quite distinct from most Conservative voters.
It's more complex than that.
They are very vulnerable to be out next election.
Yes and no.
Do any of you agree with Dawn Butler ?
Seeing as it's behind a pay wall, I do not know what she has reportedly said.
Moreover, she is not a member of the government.
She's a Labour MP and Labour are in government. Try this one
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/labours-embarrassing-badenoch-blunder/
Do you mean with Dawn Butler or with the post from someone else she apparently briefly shared and then removed?
I cannot read either article you have linked to in full, @Telford, but can read enough to assume that they contain a discussion of racism. If I am correct, any further discussion belongs in Epiphanies.
Host hat off
North East Quine, Purgatory host
That depends. If they come through for the nation and we see great improvement by then they will probably get a good result. Most voters don’t follow the ins and outs. They know what is in the news and, most importantly how well off they are. If their lives have improved. If public services are running well, if the NHS is back to what it was. If Labour can get that sorted even in a small way they are probably onto a winner.
Labour will blame the Conservatives regardless
I worry that getting the NHS 'back to what it was' is not possible. Even if time and resources per patient were doubled I think the miss-match between people's health problems and what the NHS (or any healthcare system) can achieve is unbridgeable.
The double standards are glaring.
(I mean, Johnson blamed Cameron, and Sunak blamed Johnson, and apparently that's fine even though they were actually in their respective governments.)
It all goes back to the disaster of 2008.
Winter of discontent, surely?
Nah, coming off the gold standard in 1931. All downhill from there.
Should we just jump straight to Battle of Hastings? Or the flooding of Doggerland?
The island nation mentality has no doubt had a huge effect on British history.
"There's no money left"
Brown and Darling were riding the 2008 blip quite well - we can discuss whether bailing out private financial institutions that were unwise in their investments (rather than, say, compensating the public who had savings in those banks) was a good move, but the general economic response was sound. By 2010 the economy was recovering well and 2008 would have just been one of many financial blips that any government would need to deal with and be largely forgotten if the incoming government didn't end all the good work that was in place and plunge the country into economic decline we've never recovered from.
Perfect summary. And much better than the intemperate response I was instinctively drawn to.
I strongly recommend Darling's book Back from the brink.
It was LibDem MP Laws who leaked the letter. He had to resign within two weeks of taking his post. He finally apologised last year.
Cameron and Osborne used this lie to do so much damage to our country.
But what I find mind-boggling is that someone who's been on these boards for a while would post this.
The idea that this is a sound argument has been so thoroughly debunked, repeatedly that it just shows an incredible arrogance.
AFZ
The “disaster” of 2008 was caused by the irresponsible behaviour of inadequately regulated financial markets. (Structurally, what happened had similarities with the Lloyd’s of London insurance crash two and a half decades previously.) The markets then responded by doing what (free market) economists expect (and laud them for doing) namely they corrected for the problem. Unfortunately the human and social costs of that correction were immense – as is quite often the case.
Governments and financial institutions (with the benefit of a significant lead from Gordon Brown) took steps to stabilise the situation – essentially by bailing out the failing financial institutions. There was, however, a significant financial, and therefore economic impact from this failure in the financial markets. The political fallout from that together with the Iraq war was a significant factor in the UK labour government losing the 2010 general election.
George Osborne's “austerity” program is seen by many economists now (and not a few at the time) as mistaken, and the associated political/ideological drive towards a smaller state has had adverse consequences in the education system, in the NHS, and in building standards (Grenfell Tower anyone?) to name but a few. On top of all that has been the effect of the self inflicted wound of Brexit, and the impact of the unexpected and inadequately-prepared-for COVID-19 pandemic.
This was followed by the disastrous Truss/Kwarteng budget in September 2022.
Turning now to the March 2024 Budget, here is the Institute for Government's take on it:
And here is the Institute for Fiscal Studies quoting its director, Paul Johnson, in The Times
If that was not bad enough, the Government failed to provide the Office for Budget Responsibility with adequate information in the run-up to the March 2024 Budget Statement leading the OBR to give and inaccurate response to that budget, as was note in the OBR's report on it (PDF) last month. The Treasury kept these issues to themselves
Basically, the Treasury under Jeremy Hunt, concealed, or failed to reveal, information known to them at the time which would significantly have affected the OBR's analysis. This information only became available to the present Government after the election.
Basically, although Labour (rightly) suspected that the financial situation was bad, and said so, it was actually significantly worse than official information implied.
Really? That's your argument?
Let me make sure I've got this right:
1. Sue Gray ensured that there were Labour supporters in the treasury
2. Said Labour supporters leaked the information to Labour
Therefore the Labour team knew things were far worse than was being said publically by Hunt et al. Hence Labour are the liars...
Have I got that right?
More or less, but Hunt never claimed things were good.
Don't forget that Labour had been talking about everything being in a mess for years